The National Food Security Bill (NFSB) recently passed by Parliament is the most important rights-based legislation introduced by the UPA-II government. The landmark Bill championed by Congress president Sonia Gandhi guarantees two-thirds of the population the right to 5 kg of food grain every month at subsidised rates. In a spirited speech to Parliament, she described the legislation as India's chance to "make history" by abolishing hunger and malnutrition.

"We have the opportunity to provide food to everyone, especially weaker sections of our society that have not benefited from India's economic prosperity," she said. She made it clear that whatever be the economic constraints, the Bill providing for the largest food security programme in the world has to be passed, so that "no one will now go to bed hungry".

Roti aur Makaan

The NFSB along with the land acquisition Bill are two big changes with potentially transformative consequences that have invested much-needed public purpose to a crisis-ridden government. NFSB makes the state responsible for food security by giving citizens legal entitlement to food.

The measure is a major acknowledgement that India recognises the responsibility of the state to provide food security to the poor that is significant given that public discourse has moved away from it. Though the NFSB is only the beginning, its success in eliminating hunger depends on implementation.

Steered by Sonia Gandhi, the UPA in the last few years has privileged the rights-based approach. While the growth model saw no change, there was recognition that serious imbalances between growth and distribution needed to be addressed. In response, the government began to shape a new form of "welfare politics" through the introduction of the Right to Information, 2005; the Right to Work, 2005; the Forest Rights Act, the Right to Education, 2009; and the Right to Food, 2013. These legal rights that seek to provide safety nets run counter to the global consensus on marketled growth that overrides political and ethical concerns on inequality.

Rights for the Wronged

The first three of these rights were enacted under UPA-I with the support of the Left parties. But without Left support, there was a serious apprehension that UPA-II may renege on its promise of food security. However, Sonia Gandhi was firm in her resolve to implement the food security scheme despite deliberate parliamentary disruptions by the opposition parties to thwart the legislation.

This is not surprising. Sonia has given greater weight to redistributive policies because she believes that the poor need to be shielded from the vagaries of the market and must be given the benefits of prosperity the market refused to share with them.

The need to forge a political balance was unmistakable because inequality has increased markedly after economic liberalisation. This is not an either/or approach but one based on an appreciation that there is a critical role for the state and its institutions in alleviating mass deprivation. Hence, the development strategy favoured by her has a welfarist thread running through it.

For sure, the NFSB is driven by electoral interests. The Congress coalition came to power in 2004 largely on the strength of the promise to guarantee work. It retained power five years later by extending and deepening social spending and enacting rightsbased legislation.

I have Promises to Keep

This time too, Sonia made sure that the Congress stays on the message that it stands for equity and welfare. In a democracy, a ruling party will push policies that voters will reward, as happened in 2009. If most voters are poor, there are bound to be some policies that help them. The interesting question is, why has India enacted fewer such policies than one would expect from a poor democracy? India's elites have mounted an unprecedented attack on the NFSB, as an instance of reckless populism that will destroy our growth story forever. This criticism is misplaced. The NFSB is a redistributive policy; but in India, it is customary to label all social policies as populist and, thus, unacceptable. The elite as well as the middle class seem opposed to the politics of the poor by dubbing it wasteful expenditure.

Critics have turned the public debate on food security into a general vote on Sonia's policies. The resentment against social policies and rights-based legislations, which has grown since the UPA came back to power, has risen with a vengeance against Sonia who is driving the agenda. Yet, she continues to be a powerful voice for the empowerment of the poor in the face of opposition. While her politics has a radical streak and she was powerful enough to force the government's hand on MGNREGA and NFSB, Sonia Gandhi is essentially a centrist politician, who is not about to jettison the economic reform agenda. But the difference between her and most other politicians lies in her insistence on progressive social policies to balance growth with equity.

The writer is professor of political science, Jawaharlal Nehru University